Tempo e predicazione nella sintassi delle frasi copulari (tesi di laurea)

parlava di "syntactic connectedness". In particol are:
"he showed that connectedness was not simply a feature
of free relatives but occured in other copular sentences
as well" (Williams (1983), p. 429)
Un es. citato da Williams:
A fear of himself is John's greatest problem.
dove il pronome riflessivo, in modo anomalo, precede
l'elemento referenziale cui si lega.
E' a questo punto che s'inserisce l'idea dell'inversione:
"In light of an analysis of specificational
pseudocleft, we are in a position to put forward a
statement were connectedness will be found that was not
available to Higgins:
22) A subject is "syntactically correlated to"
its predicate and not vicecersa.
This means that a reflexive can have a non c-commanding
antecedent if the reflexive is in a subject and the
antecedent is in the predicate, but not viceversa; this
is true of the specificational pseudo cleft ••. and some
other cases as well:
23) [Hi' A pi cture of hi msel f,'J [V" upset John(' J
[Ali" *A picture of John;J ["p upset himself(·J
SUBJECT PREDICATE
Under this view what has been called "backward
reflexivisation" is simply another case of syntactic
connectedeness of a subject (asymmetrically) connected
to its predicate, as in 22). If 22) is correct, as 23)
would tend to suggest, then we have a further reason to
analyse the specificational pseudoclef as having a
predicate free relative NP and a referential XP:
"connectedness" runs in only one direction, from subject
to predicate" (Williams (1983), p.430).
L'ipotesi di Williams, come si vede, si muove in
direzione opposta ai risultati di Ruwet: a mio parere le
idee di Ruwet sono da tenere come valide almeno in
quanto escludono, stando all'attuale rappresentazione
101